Rankings and Majors

L

Logic

Semi-Pro
Someone mentioned this in another thread, but I thought it was interesting enough to merit its own: it's plausible that Stan might win the US Open but still finish third or fourth in the year-end rankings.

In this case, he would have won two of the four majors, and so he would arguably be the most accomplished player of the year. However, the year-end rankings would not reflect that.

I feel that there should be some way to reconcile this. Perhaps we could change the ITF award to be given strictly to the player who wins the most majors in a year (with suitable tie-breaking criteria). Or maybe there could be some conditions on YE#1 or alterations to the ranking system to ensure that whoever wins the most majors is guaranteed (or almost guaranteed) to be YE#1 (tie-broken by ranking points).

I'd like to know your thoughts on the matter. Whether you think things should be kept as they are, or you have some suggestions of your own for changes that would somehow recognise the player who has won the most majors in a year, please explain your reasoning.
 
Last edited:
I tend to be hostile to the 'majors are everything' philosophy, but this is the thing: Federer has had a way more consistent season than Wawrinka, but i'm sure he'd trade it all for 1 AO. For the top players it's really majors above anything else by far. Andy has even said for him its all about majors, ranking is more incidental; even through he's never been number 1, getting to number 1 for him is not on par with more slams..
 
An easy solution would be to make the majors worth more, like say 3000 points each instead of 2000, but I do like things the way they are and would keep them as such. On the flip side, it is Stan's own fault that he would likely finish 3rd or 4th. I understand that majors are majors, but seriously what has he done this year? Won MC but besides that he's been p.i.s.s. poor in the other M1000's. Done good at Wimbledon but lost 1st round at RG. Not sure about 500's or 250's but I'd imagine he hasn't really lit those up either.
 
Stan has 1,365 points outside of the AO and Monte Carlo. I'm sure he'd take those results and 2 slams in a heart beat, but in no way would I feel uncomfortable about him finishing outside the top 2. The majority of his season has been very forgettable.

To put it into perspective, if he had lost first round in Australian and Monte Carlo, he'd be having a slightly better year than Gael Monfils, and a worse year than Tommy Robredo.
 
Last edited:
I believe that if you win a major you get into the WTF even if out of the top eight. This seems to me a good policy.
 
I doubt the players care. And fans will always have their opinions on who was the best in a given calendar year - some knowledgeable, some biased.

No offense to the Euros, but 'player of the year' sounds like some contrived award to mimic the Ball'd'Or (sp? Golden Ball) for football. If a player wins that but his team doesn't win any major competitions...
 
Steve0904 said:
An easy solution would be to make the majors worth more, like say 3000 points each instead of 2000, but I do like things the way they are and would keep them as such. On the flip side, it is Stan's own fault that he would likely finish 3rd or 4th. I understand that majors are majors, but seriously what has he done this year? Won MC but besides that he's been p.i.s.s. poor in the other M1000's. Done good at Wimbledon but lost 1st round at RG. Not sure about 500's or 250's but I'd imagine he hasn't really lit those up either.
Click to expand...

Stan has won 3 titles this year, 1 Slam (Australian Open), 1 Masters 1000 (Monte Carlo) and 1 ATP250 (Chennai). His best showing at the other Slams so far is a quarter-final at Wimbledon. His best showing at the other Masters 1000s so far is a quarter-final at Cincinnati. His best showing at other smaller events so far is a semi-final at Queens (ATP250). He has also played in 2 DC ties for Switzerland and won 2 out of his 3 rubbers.
 
Last edited:
Steve0904 said:
An easy solution would be to make the majors worth more, like say 3000 points each instead of 2000, but I do like things the way they are and would keep them as such. On the flip side, it is Stan's own fault that he would likely finish 3rd or 4th. I understand that majors are majors, but seriously what has he done this year? Won MC but besides that he's been p.i.s.s. poor in the other M1000's. Done good at Wimbledon but lost 1st round at RG. Not sure about 500's or 250's but I'd imagine he hasn't really lit those up either.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. Keep things as they are I say- consistency is a hugely important(and underrated) aspect of the rankings and should also be taken into account rather than simply titles won.
 
Present time the ranking system is almost perfect, Slams are maybe the most desirables tournaments but tennis is a lot more than that.
 
Ranking is good and accurate as is. No need to change.

It is Wawrinka fault that he was not consistent enough.

Anyway. Wawrinka is not winning USO so this is a moot point.

Also you can look at it this way. If Wawrinka would be good enough to win two slams he would have been good enough to be a bit more consistent and win enough ranking points to be ranked #1. Since he is not good enough to do either of these two he does not deserve #1. Plain and simple.
Djokovic is indeed the best player in the world and rightful #1. Please learn to deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Chico said:
Ranking is good and accurate as is. No need to change.

It is Wawrinka fault that he was not consistent enough.

Anyway. Wawrinka is not winning USO so this is a moot point.

Also you can look at it this way. If Wawrinka would be good enough to win two slams he would have been good enough to be a bit more consistent and win enough ranking points to be ranked #1. Since he is not good enough to do either of these two he does not deserve #1. Plain and simple.
Djokovic is indeed the best player in the world and rightful #1. Please learn to deal with it.
Click to expand...


Nadal was good enough to win 2 Slams last year, and he was consistent enough to win enough ranking points to be ranked #1.
But did you learn to deal with it?!

The amount of hypocrisy and extreme bias from you is just shocking! Practice what you preach.
Have a nice day!
 
Logic said:
Someone mentioned this in another thread, but I thought it was interesting enough to merit its own: it's plausible that Stan might win the US Open but still finish third or fourth in the year-end rankings.

In this case, he would have won two of the four majors, and so he would arguably be the most accomplished player of the year. However, the year-end rankings would not reflect that.

I feel that there should be some way to reconcile this. Perhaps we could change the ITF award to be given strictly to the player who wins the most majors in a year (with suitable tie-breaking criteria). Or maybe there could be some conditions on YE#1 or alterations to the ranking system to ensure that whoever wins the most majors is guaranteed (or almost guaranteed) to be YE#1 (tie-broken by ranking points).

I'd like to know your thoughts on the matter. Whether you think things should be kept as they are, or you have some suggestions of your own for changes that would somehow recognise the player who has won the most majors in a year, please explain your reasoning.
Click to expand...

I think the system is fine. You don't deserve to be rewarded if you win a major, but then you lose in the first round of the next major.

What you are proposing is buffalo effect. When cavemen killed a buffalo then they didn't have to do anything for months because they had tons of meat.

I don't like this buffalo system. You show up for 14 days twice a year and win two majors and then don't show up and you deserve to be nr.1? I don't agree with this system.

That's why I like that we use two systems for greatness. One is weeks nr.1 which measures consistency and the other is how you do at majors. And greatness is combination of both. I think everything is important for greatness. Domination (slams), consistency (rankings) and longevity(how long you can sustain elite status).

Yes in theory one can win 4 majors and still be nr.2. But he can also lose 1st rounds of all masters. But the other guy can win all masters and make all 4 GS finals and be nr.1. I think this is quite fair. First guy just dominated majors, but didn't do anything at masters. But the other guy dominated masters and was 2nd in dominating majors.

But in the end their hypothetical careers would look like that:
1st guy:4 majors won, CYGS, 0 weeks nr.1, 0 masters, 0 year end nr.1

2nd guy:52 weeks nr.1, year end nr.1, 4 GS finals, 9 masters won.

I guess this depends on your bias, who did more. One guy was more dominant at majors, but the other guy was more dominant at masters and was more consistent and also he was nr.2 in domination at majors.
 
LazyNinja19 said:
Nadal was good enough to win 2 Slams last year, and he was consistent enough to win enough ranking points to be ranked #1.
But did you learn to deal with it?!

The amount of hypocrisy and extreme bias from you is just shocking! Practice what you preach.
Have a nice day!
Click to expand...

But to be fair, it weren't fans who started this. It was ITF, who started this. Official panel of experts and governing body. If it were just fans saying it, we could dismiss it.

That doesn't mean Nadal wasn't better, but you can't just ignore it and sweep it under the rug. It still means something. At least there can be discussion.

Yes, Nadal won 1 major more. But he also lost 1st round at W and din't play AO and Nole won WTF. So, that means it was at least close between them if experts seem to think so. Rafa wasn't light years ahead as some people feel this.

My logic is biased, but it will always be consistent. I will use the same logic for all players and all situations. So, Nadal won more points, he was better in my book.

But you can't blame fans for this, ITF messed things up.
 
jg153040 said:
But to be fair, it weren't fans who started this. It was ITF, who started this. Official panel of experts and governing body. If it were just fans saying it, we could dismiss it.

That doesn't mean Nadal wasn't better, but you can't just ignore it and sweep it under the rug. It still means something. At least there can be discussion.

Yes, Nadal won 1 major more. But he also lost 1st round at W and din't play AO and Nole won WTF. So, that means it was at least close between them if experts seem to think so. Rafa wasn't light years ahead as some people feel this.

My logic is biased, but it will always be consistent. I will use the same logic for all players and all situations. So, Nadal won more points, he was better in my book.

But you can't blame fans for this, ITF messed things up.
Click to expand...

ITF did the right thing. Djokovic had waaaaay more Slam and Masters points than Nadal and Nadal was ranked above Novak only due to points from MM clay tournaments (Vina Del Mar, Sao Paolo, Acapulco and Barcelona).
ITF tennis experts recognized that and since if was clear that Djokovic was the best player in 2013 rightfully gave him the world champions award.

It was not a mess up, or an accident. It was correct decision by people much more competent than you or me. Clear indication that Nadal's 2013 achievements are overrated while Novak's are underrated here. Just like everything else about the two of them on this board.
 
Chico said:
ITF did the right thing. Djokovic had waaaaay more Slam and Masters points than Nadal and Nadal was ranked above Novak only due to points from MM clay tournaments (Vina Del Mar, Sao Paolo, Acapulco and Barcelona).
ITF tennis experts recognized that and since if was clear that Djokovic was the best player in 2013 rightfully gave him the world champions award.

It was not a mess up, or an accident. It was correct decision by people much more competent than you or me. Clear indication that Nadal's 2013 achievements are overrated while Novak's are underrated here. Just like everything else about the two of them on this board.
Click to expand...

Yes, but ATP experts are even smarter. And they don't agree with you and ITF experts. So, the official standings are valid.

But my personal opinion would be that they both deserved to share nr.1 ranking. They were pretty equal in my book. Yes, Rafa has 2 majors plus more masters, but he also has 0 points in half the majors. Nole has only 1 major, but he went deep in all the majors and has WTF win.

So, it's pretty close.

For me the clinching argument against Rafa is 0 points at half the majors. If he only made 4th rounds, I would give it to Rafa. But 0 points? That is big.
 
The_Order said:
^^^ Actually, he still would've got 10 points for Wimbledon :lol:
Click to expand...

Ok, fine if you want to get technical and argue semantics.

For me 1st round loss is equal as doing nothing.

It's even worse than qualifying, at least those lower guys need to win a few matches to even qualify.

But, ok 1st round loss is still better than not playing at all.
 
If Wawrinka wins the US Open and ends the year with a ranking of 4 it will be an anomoly. What it will show is that his peak performance is very high, but that his median performance is low. It will show him to be the best prepared player on the circuit because he's peaking for the important tournaments/matches and not wasting energy on tournaments that ultimately don't matter.
 
This wouldn't be more of an "anomaly" than Thomas Johansson never getting better than #7 in the year following his success at the AO, or Ivanisevic only reaching the 12th spot after his win at Wimbledon. Although they won one of the four most important tournaments of the year (and thus "should" theorically have been ranked in the top 4), the rest of their year wasn't up to par.
 
reaper said:
If Wawrinka wins the US Open and ends the year with a ranking of 4 it will be an anomoly. What it will show is that his peak performance is very high, but that his median performance is low. It will show him to be the best prepared player on the circuit because he's peaking for the important tournaments/matches and not wasting energy on tournaments that ultimately don't matter.
Click to expand...

Except that all tournaments do matter when it comes to determining the year end rankings otherwise why have them at all?
 
I've got no problem with Wawrinka being ranked 4. There needs to be a method of determining rankings and the points based system as it currently stands is as good as any. All I'm saying is that if Wawrinka wins the US Open (which at this stage is still only a 1 in 20 chance according to betting odds), his ranking won't be a true reflection of his performance level or achievements. His level of play at his peak will have been equal to or greater than any other player on the tour and at least one player ranked above him (Federer) would happily swap Wawrinka's season for his own.
 
reaper said:
I've got no problem with Wawrinka being ranked 4. There needs to be a method of determining rankings and the points based system as it currently stands is as good as any. All I'm saying is that if Wawrinka wins the US Open (which at this stage is still only a 1 in 20 chance according to betting odds), his ranking won't be a true reflection of his performance level or achievements. His level of play at his peak will have been equal to or greater than any other player on the tour and at least one player ranked above him (Federer) would happily swap Wawrinka's season for his own.
Click to expand...

But why should rankings reflect only peak play? Nobody says that rankings should reflect peak play. We have slams who determine peak play, but rankings to determine consistency.

So, why change when we have two great systems?

It's the same in other sports too. For example skiing or ski jumping. You don't need to win the most to be nr.1. You just need to be more consistently close to the top than nr.2 guy.
 
I'm not advocating a change to the ranking system. What I'm saying is that rankings don't matter relative to wins in important tournaments. A hypothetical for Federer: Would Federer rather:

A) Have won the 2014 Wimbledon Final but finished the year ranked at number 3 OR

B) Have lost the 2014 Wimbledon final but snatch the Year End number 2 ranking (as is now a distinct possibility)

Federer (IMO) couldn't give a damn whether his YE ranking is 2 or 3. He would love another Wimbledon.

SIMILARLY Would Wawrinka rather:

A) Win the US Open and finish they year ranked 4 OR
B) Not win the US Open but have some success in the end of season tournaments and finish the year ranked 3.

I contend he would take option A every day of the week. I've got no problem with the ranking system. What I'm saying is that no one half a brain cares what their ranking number is, other than that to have a higher ranking affords you a seeding that allows for easier passage through tournament draws.
 
reaper said:
I'm not advocating a change to the ranking system. What I'm saying is that rankings don't matter relative to wins in important tournaments. A hypothetical for Federer: Would Federer rather:

A) Have won the 2014 Wimbledon Final but finished the year ranked at number 3 OR

B) Have lost the 2014 Wimbledon final but snatch the Year End number 2 ranking (as is now a distinct possibility)

Federer (IMO) couldn't give a damn whether his YE ranking is 2 or 3. He would love another Wimbledon.

SIMILARLY Would Wawrinka rather:

A) Win the US Open and finish they year ranked 4 OR
B) Not win the US Open but have some success in the end of season tournaments and finish the year ranked 3.

I contend he would take option A every day of the week. I've got no problem with the ranking system. What I'm saying is that no one half a brain cares what their ranking number is, other than that to have a higher ranking affords you a seeding that allows for easier passage through tournament draws.
Click to expand...

It is irrelevant what players would prefer. Fact is that you need to achieve a certain goal to be nr.1. Fine, some players may prefer to win a slam and not being called the best in the world. That is their choice.

Rankings aren't suppose to reflect domination, they reflect consistency.

And are you sure players would choose a slam rather than bigger prize money? Check out Ferrer vs Del Potro for example.

Even Serena said when he lost nr.2 to Wozniacki, that she doesn't feel the best in the world.

Of course players care what their ranking is. It is a fact. It's like arguing people who have jobs, don't care about their salary.

You think people don't care if they are in the top 10 or not? It doesn't make sense.

Hey, just because you don't like something, you don't need to twist facts. And the fact is that players do care about rankings.
 
I suppose it depends what you mean by best in the world. Were Dinara Safina or Caroline Wozniacki ever really the best female tennis players in the world? They were according to a computer generated anomaly but I'm not sure anyone actually believed it. I've got no problem with the ranking system...but it doesn't always accurately reflect which player is superior to the other.
 
reaper said:
I suppose it depends what you mean by best in the world. Were Dinara Safina or Caroline Wozniacki ever really the best female tennis players in the world? They were according to a computer generated anomaly but I'm not sure anyone actually believed it. I've got no problem with the ranking system...but it doesn't always accurately reflect which player is superior to the other.
Click to expand...

Well, that is why we use computers, not humans to determine who is best in the world. Computer isn't biased. It doesn't care, he just talks numbers.

That's why I think computer system is more reliable for telling who the best in the world is.

That's why in science we use machines to measure reality, not humans, because we are error prone and biased and clouded by emotions.

What would you rather use instead of math? That we vote who nr.1 is?

Only emotional bias can say that one guy deserves to be nr.1 or not. Computers don't do that, they are objective.

I mean when will it stop? You say slams are more important. They I can say hey W is worth more, so a guy who wins W deserves 3000 ranking points and argue Fed making W final is worth more than Warinka AO win, so Fed can still be nr.1.
Also I can say beating Rafa at RG final is worth more than beating Soderling.
So, Fed only gets 1700 points for RG.

See what happens without computer? Chaos and personal bias.

I love that science isn't done by voting.
 
jg, I think you are arguing with someone who pretty much agrees with you.

If Stan wins two slams and finished 4 in the world, that's all there is to it. I (and Reaper, I think) believe the ranking system we have now is fine, and that consistency is a very important factor in determining year end ranking.

However, Nadal, Fed, and Novak would exchange their ranking for a second slam (1 slam for Fed), no question about it. This doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the ranking system.

Now, when it comes to who had "the best" year, it gets a little bit more subjective. If Stan wins two slams to Rafa and Novak's 1, he was the better player when it mattered most. He clearly wasn't the best all year long though.
 
tacou said:
jg, I think you are arguing with someone who pretty much agrees with you.

If Stan wins two slams and finished 4 in the world, that's all there is to it. I (and Reaper, I think) believe the ranking system we have now is fine, and that consistency is a very important factor in determining year end ranking.

However, Nadal, Fed, and Novak would exchange their ranking for a second slam (1 slam for Fed), no question about it. This doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the ranking system.

Now, when it comes to who had "the best" year, it gets a little bit more subjective. If Stan wins two slams to Rafa and Novak's 1, he was the better player when it mattered most. He clearly wasn't the best all year long though.
Click to expand...

But, how do you know people would exchange? It's theoretical. It wasn't offered to anyone in history. Yes, pros joke about it, since they know you can't trade. But if it was an option, you don't know what they would choose.

So, it's false to claim that we know that they would trade. Every player has different motivation.

Yes, it gets subjective with people. But with computer it doesn't. No bias. I would use computer over humans any day.

Who decides when it matters most? That is also subjective. Who decides that winning one major is superior than making 2 major finals for example?

Computer is great. No more that crap that W is worth more or WTF is just an expo. Or that beating one player is more impressive. We have objective system for any player and every situation.

And rankings do reflect skill very nicely. You have to win the most to be nr.1. You have to have best h2h vs all players.

Would you rather see that we vote? It would be a mess.

Yes ranking system should reward slam winners. And it does. It should penalize 1st round losses too and it does. So, it's fair.
 
Last edited:
jg153040 said:
But, how do you know people would exchange? It's theoretical. It wasn't offered to anyone in history. Yes, pros joke about it, since they know you can't trade. But if it was an option, you don't know what they would choose.

So, it's false to claim that we know that they would trade. Every player has different motivation.

Yes, it gets subjective with people. But with computer it doesn't. No bias. I would use computer over humans any day.

Who decides when it matters most? That is also subjective. Who decides that winning one major is superior than making 2 major finals for example?

Computer is great. No more that crap that W is worth more or WTF is just an expo. Or that beating one player is more impressive. We have objective system for any player and every situation.

And rankings do reflect skill very nicely. You have to win the most to be nr.1. You have to have best h2h vs all players.

Would you rather see that we vote? It would be a mess.
Click to expand...


But again, I don't know what or who you are arguing with. I am not saying the computer is wrong, I think the ranking system is perfect as is. I don't want to see any change.

The only thing I disagree with is the "theoretical exchange." I know for a fact Roger Federer would rather win this US Open and finish the year at #4 than finish the year slamless and finish at #2.
 
tacou said:
But again, I don't know what or who you are arguing with. I am not saying the computer is wrong, I think the ranking system is perfect as is. I don't want to see any change.

The only thing I disagree with is the "theoretical exchange." I know for a fact Roger Federer would rather win this US Open and finish the year at #4 than finish the year slamless and finish at #2.
Click to expand...

Well, we don't know that for a fact. Because even if he says he would, that doesn't prove anything, because the option isn't presented. Because when you actually have to do it, things are different in real life.

But, ok let's say it's reasonable to assume he would have done this. I don't dispute that.

But what does that have to do with determining the better player or rankings not reflecting who the best is?
 
jg153040 said:
Well, we don't know that for a fact. Because even if he says he would, that doesn't prove anything, because the option isn't presented. Because when you actually have to do it, things are different in real life.

But, ok let's say it's reasonable to assume he would have done this. I don't dispute that.

But what does that have to do with determining the better player or rankings not reflecting who the best is?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with that. Like I said, I have no issue with the computer ranking system.
 
reaper said:
I've got no problem with Wawrinka being ranked 4. There needs to be a method of determining rankings and the points based system as it currently stands is as good as any. All I'm saying is that if Wawrinka wins the US Open (which at this stage is still only a 1 in 20 chance according to betting odds), his ranking won't be a true reflection of his performance level or achievements. His level of play at his peak will have been equal to or greater than any other player on the tour and at least one player ranked above him (Federer) would happily swap Wawrinka's season for his own.
Click to expand...
You start down a real slippery slope when you try to create a 'perfect' system to handle all permutations.

Think of it like an argument with a friend: if Stan isn't #1 at the end of the year you will 'agree to disagree' with the ranking system. No biggie.
 
Sadly there is no such thing as a perfect rankings system, each & every system has the potential to throw up an anomaly from time to time. If Stan were to win the USO & finish the year ranked 3rd or 4th then all it would highlight is his ability to peak for the majors (or conversely other top players faltering at majors). Obviously the 4 Majors are seen as the pinnacle of professional tennis & this is already reflected in the rankings system by the ATP awarding double the points when compared to the next level of tournament (excluding WTF). I personally believe current system is most fair way of distributing points & to determine tournament seedlings (excluding Wimbledon).

I also don't think you'd see Stan protesting against the current system should he finish the year at 3 or 4 yet with a Slam title under each arm...he'd simply concede he wasn't consistent enough at other Majors & 1000 events where maximum points are on offer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
new rankings system
Replies
9
Views
1K
dr325i
dr325i
Hops
2007 ATP Quiz - Rankings
Replies
3
Views
1K
krystlel
K
M
Federer and Records for the rest of 2010
Replies
0
Views
495
McEnroeisanartist
M
Hops
2006 ATP Quiz - Rankings
Replies
2
Views
733
Hops
Hops
Hops
2005 ATP Quiz - Rankings
Replies
10
Views
1K
Hops
Hops
Back
Top